The 2006 Tory Budget

[Jake]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060502/budget_military_060502/20060502?s_name=budget2006&no_ads=

There's another article focusing on the military portion of the budget.

How the Tories plan to address the acquisition issue, and others including the question of how many long and short-range transport planes it will acquire, will be addressed in the fall.

I think they will wait until they have a majority (if it happens) to put alot of money into the military.

 

[geo]

Let's face it, while the military is important, it isn't as important to the gov't in power as gaining the hearts and minds of the population....... so we'll get lip service and promises -  until next time.

 

[paracowboy]

We (the military members) are also aware of the huge hurdles in the way of the procurement process, and should also be aware of just how limited our capacity to expand really is. Care to explain how 20,000+ recruits are going to be processed and trained without boots, rifles, small arms ammunition, radios etc. to equip them or sufficient NCO's to lead and train them? While we can look back at pictures of recruits in civilian cloths doing drill with broom handles in 1914 and 1939 and shake our heads, do we really want to be seeing those pictures in 2007 or welcoming those same troops into our units after that type of training?

yup. All this talk about the expansion of the military is a load.

Can not be done. Not for years. Hell, most BNs can't even fill the taskings we're getting now with NCOs and Officers, let alone equipment shortages. How we gonna train these troops up? Who's gonna do it? Where's the kit gonna come from? How we gonna kit out thousands of new troops when the front-line units are missing vital equipment? We don't have enough support pers RIGHT NOW, how we gonna keep OPTEMPO ('reduced' as it is - how'd everyone enjoy their "Operational Pause"?) and send them to schools to teach recruits? Hellfire, we can't even meet the requirements for Operations and fill the schools with NCOs, let alone do so while trying to teach our troops in BN how to be soldiers.

piffle, as Opus the penguin would say.

All that being said, we're still doing better than we were this time last year. At least we have more money.

 

[geo]

sure we do..... at least that's what they say..... but has someone tried to spend it?

 

[paracowboy]

but has someone tried to spend it?

yeah, ME! Iintend to single-handedly blow every dang dime. Mostly on beer and strippers. Wanna come with?

 

[geo]

I ain't taking my clothes of for you...... no matter how many beers you feed me

 

[Rodders]

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion on the Conservative government's budgetary announcements as they relate to defence. Is this because people are disappointed with them, or because they are so content that no comment is necessary.

While I don't think our defence priorities are identical to those of Australia, it is interesting to note how dedicated they seem to be in rebuilding their armed forces.

Here is an article from Defence Aerospace. I hope I'm not breaching any board rules by simply posting it here. If so, I apologise.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16742938.1131572689.Q3Jt0cOa9dUAAHzOZ4o&modele=jdc_34

If the Conservatives are as dedicated to defence as they implied during the election campaign, why are we not seeing solid indications of that commitment?

The increases in troop numbers announced are those announced by the Liberals are they not? And, as to the increase in spending, is this in addition to that announced by the Liberals, or a new funding commitment? If it's the later, is it not similar to that proposed by the previous government. If so, it does not suggest to me any great new commitment to the CF.

I'm not being partisan. I didn't vote Conservative, but I'm not committed to any one party. However, I do agree that defence needs significant increases in funding, and while I don't agree with many Conservative ideologies, I was hoping that one upside would be a dedicated commitment to defence. I'm not sure that we have seen that.

 

[dapaterson]

Rodders:

The Tories have announced significantly larger increaess than the Liberals.  Under the Liberals, force expansion was 5K Regulars / 3K Reserves.  Under the Tories, 13K Regular / 10K Reserves.  Complete details and timelines have not been released yet for either expansion.  However, the MND has stated that the increase in planned expansions will limit the availability of CF soldiers for international operations such as Darfur.

 

[McG]

Armed Forces recruiting plan questioned by senators
Mike Blanchfield, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, May 09, 2006

OTTAWA - "The magic of accountants" will help the Conservatives deliver on their promise to add 13,000 new full-time Canadian Forces personnel, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told a Senate committee Monday.

O'Connor also said that as much as half of the $400 million in extra funding for the military in last week's federal budget could be clawed back under a spending plan the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals.

The Conservatives' defence plan calls for $5.3 billion in new funds over five years to buy new ships and build a new Arctic port, as well as purchase transport planes and trucks for its mission in Afghanistan. The plan also includes boosting the regular force by 13,000 and the reserves by 10,000.

But with only $400 million of that money earmarked for the coming year, O'Connor faced questions from Liberal and Conservative senators.

The Conservative government has said the Armed Forces will be exempt from its spending review, but O'Connor said a similar program put in place by the Liberals could see a significant reduction in the $400 million allocated in last week's budget.

Liberal Senator Joseph Day wondered how the military could begin its recruiting plan with as little as $200 million in actual new money this year.

"We'll actually spend more money on people this year, above what the original plan was and, uh, the magic of accountants, somehow they can shuffle those dollars around," O'Connor replied. "I don't get into that sort of stuff, but they can shuffle dollars around and there will be extra money to buy more people this year."

Conservative Senator Norman Atkins questioned how the Conservatives could recruit the new personnel, when the military was so stretched to properly train them.

O'Connor said the department is determined to do better over time, even if it means bringing back skilled military professionals from retirement.

O'Connor told the senators that the Conservative plan would boost the base defence budget to more than $20 billion from $14.8 billion by 2011.

 

[DJ]

Whups.  Too funny/sad to pass-up. 
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/06/06/budget.html


Federal budget passes unopposed on mix-up
Last Updated Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:44:54 EDT
CBC News

Even though two federal parties had promised to vote against the Conservative government's budget, it passed Tuesday without opposition because of an apparent mix-up.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responds to questions during question period Tuesday. (CBC)

When the May 2 budget came up for its third and final reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday morning, no one stood to speak. Because there were no apparent speakers, the budget was declared passed by unanimous consent with no recorded vote.

NDP MP Libby Davies told CBC News the mix-up happened because a Conservative MP who had been scheduled to speak first was not in the chamber.

In the ensuing confusion, Davies said the opposition legislators were waiting for the Tory MP to show up and speak before they stood up. They later learned that the budget had been dealt with, at least as far as the House of Commons was concerned.

At one point, the Liberal finance critic, John McCallum, stood up to debate the budget but was told it was too late and the budget had already been passed.

McCallum later admitted to feeling a little sheepish. "I think it was an honest error all around. It just got through without parliamentarians realizing quite what had happened until it had happened."

CBC Radio reporter Chris Hall said none of the two dozen or so MPs in the House of Commons at the time — and that included government members — appeared to realize that the budget had just been passed.

Finance Minister jokes about 'popular' budget

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who wasn't even in the House when the budget was passed, seemed to be enjoying the appearance of "unanimity" for his budget.

In the afternoon question period, he thanked the opposition for supporting the government during the budget's third reading. Earlier, he joked to reporters that the budget was "even more popular than I thought." 

The Liberals and the NDP had said their members were going to vote against the budget, which cuts the GST by one percentage point as of July 1 and brings in a child-care allowance of $1,200 a year for the parents of each child under age six.

But the Bloc Québécois had indicated it would support the Conservatives. So even if the NDP and Liberals had voted against it, the budget still would have passed.

Some opposition members had spoken against the budget in earlier parliamentary debates.

The budget bill now goes to the Senate a week ahead of schedule and then will go to the Governor General for royal assent.

 

[paracowboy]

there you have it: the level of professionalism and duty these clowns in the Liberal and NDP truly have.

 

[clasper]

there you have it: the level of professionalism and duty these clowns in the Liberal and NDP truly have.

And the absence of Flaherty and the Tory MP who was scheduled to speak first doesn't say anything about their professionalism and duty? 

 

[geo]

Hmmm.... makes me think of a 3 ring circus.

 

[paracowboy]

And the absence of Flaherty and the Tory MP who was scheduled to speak first doesn't say anything about their professionalism and duty? 

not unless we find out they wer absent because of dereliction. For all I know, they had family emergencies, were in a traffic accident, or had a stroke.

But, a professional pays attention to his surroundings, and is aware of when the schedule alters. He then adapts and reacts, and carries on with the plan. These fools were so accustomed to the pro-forma that they couldn't be bothered to stay awake long enough to promote their own agenda.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Personally, I think it's a hoot. The look on McCallum's face was even more confused than usual......... and worth five bucks if I had to pay to see it. This gov't just keeps getting better and better, finally. I'd almost like to think they actually planned it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose you'll have to ask the Conservatives and hope for a straight answer if you wish to know whether they pulled a procedural fast one.  It wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time parliamentary procedure has been exploited by someone with some knowledge of the rules and a "hey, what if..." inspiration.

 

[Old Sweat]

If you do your homework, plan properly and keep ahead of the game, 'luck' tends to go your way.